The Court upheld the decision of a Prothonotary to strike portions of a Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim.

In its Defence and Counterclaim, the generic company alleged that the patent was invalid due to claims being broader than the invention disclosed, based on statements made by the inventor during the course of prosecution of the U.S. patent application.

The Court found that jurisprudence does not allow the use of this type of extrinsic evidence. The specification of the patent must be construed in the manner dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada. As the extrinsic evidence upon which the allegation relies is not admissible under Canadian patent law, it was plain and obvious that the defence had no merit.

The full text of the decision can be found at: